About

This website is being used by Alan Carlin to present insights based on economics and science on current public policy issues, particularly climate change.

Editor: Alan Carlin

My background:

I carried out or supervised economic and scientific research on public policy issues for over 45 years, first at The RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California from 1963 to 1971, and from 1971 to 2010 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC. At no time has my salary been paid directly or indirectly by either natural resource development interests or non-governmental environmental organizations.

During my careers at RAND and EPA I carried out or supervised over two hundred policy-related studies on climate change, pollutant assessment, energy economics and development, environmental economics, transportation economics, benefit-cost analysis, and economic development. Those authored or co-authored by me are listed on the publications page. Those primarily involving economics and funded by USEPA are listed in the Environmental Economics Research Inventory on the website of the EPA National Center for Environmental Economics.

I am the author or co-author of about 40 publications including about 10 on climate change or energy pricing. For seven years I supervised the production of a wide variety of pollutant assessment documents very similar in concept (but not in implementation) to the draft Technical Support Document (TSD) for the EPA Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gases I commented unfavorably on in March, 2009 while working at EPA. The pollutant assessment documents were on different compounds, of course.

I have a BS in physics from the California Institute of Technology and a PhD in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I have an extensive background of working with and in environmental organizations as a volunteer. In the late 1960s I worked very closely with the Sierra Club to present economic arguments against the construction of two proposed dams in the Grand Canyon of Arizona. This campaign was ultimately successful and the dams were not built. In 1970-71 I served as the Chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club, then the Club’s second largest chapter. I am the recipient of the Chapter’s Weldon Heald award for conservation work.

10 Responses to “About”

From: Gerry McDonald. August 8th 2009
The Crusade against Carbon Dioxide is WRONG.
Global warming is real. Retreating glaciers, shrinking ice caps and the melting Arctic Ocean leave no doubt. But the phenomenon is poorly understood and politicians and scientists have rushed to questionable conclusions.
It is widely, but erroneously, believed that the “Greenhouse Effect,” is caused by the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that Global Warming can be reduced by removing CO2. That belief is wrong, and its pursuit is a serious waste of financial and political resources.

The principal cause of Global Warming is “Thermal Pollution.”

When we drive our car and consume one gallon of gasoline, 113,400 Btu (The engineers’ standard unit of energy) is released. 70% of that energy is dissipated directly to the atmosphere through the radiator and exhaust pipe (we all know how hot those get!). The remaining 30% drives the wheels but all of that 30%, in the end, is also dissipated as heat through braking and friction. The same principle applies to airplanes, power plants, factories, even lighting our homes. All activities that convert fuel to energy cause Thermal Pollution. Every single Btu or calorie that is released from any source ends up causing Thermal Pollution that heats up our globe. But is that amount of heat enough to cause global warming ?

The answer is a resounding YES:

Ø Every day we burn fossil fuels equivalent to more than 230 million barrels of oil, which release over 500 “Quads” of heat (Quadrillion Btu per year.)
Ø The weight and heat capacity of the earth’s crust, atmosphere and oceans, which are affected by this release of heat, are well known.
Ø By applying basic physics we find that 500 Quads will cause a temperature increase of 1.6 F° per century – very close to the 1 to 2 °F of global warming actually observed by climatologists.

Global warming is explained by Thermal Pollution without invoking questionable arguments about CO2.

(The full calculation is available from: GerryMcDonald@Comcast.net. It could be noted that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted by the Thermal Pollution calculation also corresponds closely to that actually observed every winter.)

The Greenhouse Effect.

The “Real Climate” states that water vapor is 66%-85% of the effect and the American Meteorological Society states “water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas accounting for 60% of the total”. Water vapor is the dominant cause yet we see no campaign to remove the clouds or dehumidify the atmosphere. Why are we barking up the wrong tree ? Is CO2 being used as a club with which to beat industry ?

It is claimed that the apparent correlation between the increased atmospheric CO2 and the increased global warming demonstrates cause and effect. That is not the case. These are independent effects of Thermal Pollution and would be expected to correlate. The baseball season begins in the spring and birds nest in the spring but it can hardly be argued that birds nest because of the baseball season.

Much of the support for the Greenhouse Effect is based on sophisticated mathematical weather models that have not been very accurate in predicting weather one month ahead, let alone one century. Eminent experts (Nigel Thomas: “An Appeal to Reason”, Gabrielle Walker and Sir David King: “The Hot Topic”, Bjorn Lomborg: “The Skeptical Environmentalist”.) and others have noted “flawed arguments” and the need to “tweak” the data to produce the desired results. One author describes talks of “computerized storytelling”. Mathematical models, that have to be “tweaked”, are highly suspect (Our current global economic problems are probably due to “tweaked” models.)

The Kyoto Accord

The Kyoto accord is an attempt to reduce global warming by curtailing CO2 emissions and reducing the greenhouse effect. While the Accord’s intentions are good they will have little effect. Lomborg, after extensive analyses, shows that world wide implementation of the Kyoto restriction will reduce global gross product by as much as $350 Billion per year and is predicted to lower global temperature by only 1°F in 2100. This is a waste of global resources that could be applied to improving our world’s health, education, and living standards.

A “Cap and Trade” program, whereby emitters entitlements to pollute has already been passed by congress. This program will not reduce CO2 emissions – merely redistribute them. The only beneficiaries will be the promoters, entrepreneurs, and traders who will establish a market for trading entitlements and the resulting derivatives. The cost of such programs will fall on John Citizen as the increased cost of electricity, gasoline and every other commodity and will produce no benefit.

Action.

There are practical solutions. Global Warming is principally caused by Thermal Pollution from the burning of fuels. Burn less and there will be less global warming – and we can easily burn less. The U.S. releases about 93 Quads of Thermal Pollution each year and globally the figure is 460 Quads. This can be reduced by the use of more efficient autos, trucks, power plants supplemented by solar and wind energy and other “green” sources. The technology is already available and our prolific inefficient use of energy provides abundant further opportunities.

A gasoline engine is about 23% efficient but a modern diesel engine can be over 45% efficient and therefore produces about half of the Thermal Pollution of a gasoline engine, while yielding twice the miles per gallon. Enforcement of a mandate that all passenger cars produced after 2010 yield 45 mpg (as attained by full-sized diesel-hybrids) would do more for the global environment than the Kyoto proposals. Thermal Pollution in the U.S. would be reduced by at least 8 Quads (~10%) by this single action. Redesigning our automobile fleet, and related activities will revitalize the industry and put thousands back to work – probably the best application of stimulus funds. Transitioning oil refining from gasoline based to diesel based will provide further employment.

50% of the fuel burned in the U.S. is for electric power generation. Modern gas-fired combined cycle plants operate at close to 60% thermal efficiency while older plants operate in the 30% to 35% class. Conversion of coal plants to gasification processes will increase efficiency (and essentially eliminate sulfate and particulate pollution). Enhanced efficiency plus contributions from wind and solar sources can reduce Thermal Pollution from power generation by 15 Quads (~16%).

Proponents of the CO2 greenhouse effect do not have to abandon their devotion to reducing CO2 emissions since increased efficiency of any form of energy conversion will effectively reduce both CO2 emissions and Thermal Pollution.

Economics.

Our nation, and the globe, is in a severe economic depression. In the U.S. our foreign trade deficit is about minus $675 Billion per year. Of that over half of that deficit is due to the purchase of 5.0 Billion barrels of crude oil per year costing, at $60/bbl, over $300 Billion. Increasing the efficiencies of our cars would reduce crude oil imports by almost 2 Billion barrels per year and reduce the outflow of U.S. dollars by $120 Billion per year and our foreign debt by the same amount. The even the threat of a reduction in U.S. purchases of oil will depress the price of oil and further increase the benefit. The whole world will gain.

Efficiency is not merely a desirable virtue. It is a necessary and sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy. Opportunities for conservation exist everywhere and all pay handsome dividends. Such projects can generate jobs now and yield economic benefits for the future

Our Nation’s Credibility can be Restored

There is a foreign policy implication. Our nation has been ostracized for having refused to ratify the Kyoto Accord for the good reason that it unfairly penalizes the U.S. and its people. Part of that treaty and its requirements are based on the false assumption that CO2 is the principal cause of global warming. If the United States would enthusiastically embrace the concepts of Thermal Pollution and Enhanced Efficiency we would have a scientific, non-political, basis for modifying Kyoto and the opportunity to present realistic alternative, solutions and targets. These would benefit both environmentally and economically, the developed and the developing nations. Instead of standing aloof from the global community the U.S. could regain its credibility as a world leader.

We should boldly abandon our belief that CO2 is the principal cause of the Global Warming and initiate a program to reduce it by more efficient utilization of global resources. The forthcoming U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will presents the U.S. with an opportunity to take the lead in the second (2012 to 2016) Kyoto period and recover our nation’s credibility and prestige.

Alan,
You indicate that you worked at the EPA. You maybe aware of some leaked documents from the Office of Administrator. Did you resign or were you pushed? Was there an issue that no one was taking any notice of the the reports and warnings?
I fully agree with the comments and assessments in the leaked documents. I liked the list of references although I wish I could get hold of more of them. It is a pity so many articles are locked from the public in obscure journals where one has to pay to retrieve them.
A couple of things in the leaked document missing I feel was a) a discussion on past CO2 measurements eg E-G Beck 2007,2008,2009 the first is mentioned in the references and b) there is nothing about CH4. The EPA wants to put 6 so-called greenhouse gases in the endangerment class the main ones are CO2 and CH4 but there is no technical information on CH4 and no proof it is a greenhouse gas.
Some blogers are mentioning the Data Quality Act and the lacl of compliance by the EPA. I believe that certainly applies to CH4 (methane)

The comment above by Gerry McDonald makes a very good arguement for why the Urban Heat factor should be used to REDUCE measured temperatures for the effected monitoring stations. 500 Quads may seem like a lot of heat energy, but daily solar influx is 84 Terawatts and daily geo-nulcear is 66 terawatts. And all heat released at the surface rapidly rises thru the atmosphere and into the void of space. At only 380 parts per million, the simple three atom CO2 molecule does not have the mass or volume to even be a tiny factor in climate change. Time to investigate the 700,000 cbic miles of fissionable material that forms the molten mantle, just a few miles below our feet.

Alan,You indicate that you worked at the EPA. You maybe aware of some leaked documents from the Office of Administrator. Did you resign or were you pushed? Was there an issue that no one was taking any notice of the the reports and warnings?I fully agree with the comments and assessments in the leaked documents. I liked the list of references although I wish I could get hold of more of them. It is a pity so many articles are locked from the public in obscure journals where one has to pay to retrieve them.A couple of things in the leaked document missing I feel was a) a discussion on past CO2 measurements eg E-G Beck 2007,2008,2009 the first is mentioned in the references and b) there is nothing about CH4. The EPA wants to put 6 so-called greenhouse gases in the endangerment class the main ones are CO2 and CH4 but there is no technical information on CH4 and no proof it is a greenhouse gas.Some blogers are mentioning the Data Quality Act and the lacl of compliance by the EPA. I believe that certainly applies to CH4 (methane)
+1

Sea level rise is one of the pillars upon which the concern over global warming is built. One of the most commonly reported projections of sea level rise for the 21st century comes from a Proceedings of the December 2009 National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) article “Global Sea level linked to Global Temperatures” by Vermeer and Rahmstorf.

Two profound problems with the Vermeer and Rahmstorf article are the fact that they used out-dated sea level data and did not incorporate a vital correction for water that is added to the oceans through depletion of groundwater aquifers.

Their source for sea level data, Church and White, updated their data at about the same time that the PNAS article was published. A Geophysical Research Letters article this year has provided very good information on the effect of the groundwater depletion. When the updated Church and White data and the groundwater depletion are accounted for, Vermeer’s and Rahmstorf’s model yields sea level rise projections for the 21st century that are only half of what they reported.

As far as I can tell, Vermeer and Rahmstorf have never acknowledged the updated Church and White data. They have not published new calculations or a retraction of their projections. Their extreme projection of 1.8 meters for the 21st century still finds its way into various documents and is widely echoed on the internet.

The concept of their model was bogus to start with. But even their bogus model yields sea level rises half of what they reported when proper data is input.

I have written a variety of posts concerning what I see as very serious flaws in this widely read article. Here is a URL to an index of those posts…

Parts 9 & 10 cover the effect of using the updated Church and White sea level data and the groundwater depletion correction. If you feel so inclined, please have a look. I would appreciate any criticisms on content or style that you could offer.If you feel my conclusions are valid and important, then it would be helpful if you

New Judith Curry Interview Just Published: The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness

Dear Alan,

I just wanted to send you a quick mail to let you know that we have conducted a very interesting interview with the well known climatologist Judith Curry.
It’s a very balanced interview and I thought you and your readers may be interested in reading about Judith’s concerns for climate science, how climate change is affecting the planet, reasons for the increase in scepticism and why climate scientists have lost touch with the public.

Q. You have said in the past that you were troubled by the lack of cooperation between organizations studying climate change, and that you want to see more transparency with the data collected. How do you suggest we encourage/force transparency and collaboration?
Q. Do you feel climatologists should be putting more effort into determining the effect of the sun on our climate? As the IPCC primarily focuses on CO2 as the cause of climate change – Is the importance of CO2 overestimated and the importance of the sun is underestimated?
Q. What are your views on the idea that CO2 may not be a significant contributor to climate change?

A very interesting post. This is the first time that I have read about the warming effect of direct heat – you are saying that there would still be a warming effect even if all our heat came from hydro electric, wind or nuclear sources. In addition, presumably, to the minute amount added from CO2 itself, the warming effect of CO2 being strongly logarithmic, and the other warming gasses, water vapour, methane and so on.

Thank you for signing the Open Climate Letter and doing all that you can to lead us all into enlightenment. We look back on previous ages and laugh at their stupidities, but nothing has changed sadly.

I just wanted to send you a quick mail to let you know that we have just conducted a very interesting interview with the well known figure in the climate debate Anthony Watts.
It’s a very interesting chat and whether you agree or disagree with his comments I thought you and your readers would find some value in taking a look

A few of the topics we discussed are:

• The difference between “global warming” and “climate change”
• Why CO2 is partially responsible but oversold
• Why recent major weather events cannot be linked to CO2
• Why we should be more worried about another ice age
• Why carbon taxes won’t have any effect on the whims of Mother Nature
• How the climate debate has taken on religious proportions
• Why the Keystone protests are all for show
• Why Mother Nature will be the final arbiter of truth
• What we should and shouldn’t be doing to address global warming
• Why “climate change” has become a favorite bogeyman
• Why scientifically we’ve only scratched the surface of climate change